12. The Chairperson reported on the consultations that he had held on the practical arrangements to be put in place for the reviews of legislation of developing countries after 1 January 2000. He recalled that delegations had been asked to inform him or the Secretariat about their thinking on this matter so that he could suggest a schedule to the Council early in 1999, and informed the Council that Mexico had joined the seven Members that had already agreed to have their TRIPS implementing legislation reviewed in the first part of the year 2000. The discussion had focused, in particular, on how the work for these reviews should be divided, since there were some 70 Members whose legislation would have to be reviewed as of 1 January 2000 - whether this should be done on a country-by-country basis or on a subject-by-subject basis. His consultations had also addressed the question of the criteria that might be employed for determining the order in which countries' legislation might be taken up in the event that the country-by-country approach were adopted. Another point had been the number of countries whose legislation should be examined in the year 2000; in this regard, he had been consulting on the basis that the Council should plan to review the legislation of all the countries in question by the end of 2001. He thanked delegations for the flexibility they had shown and for the useful inputs they had made in the process of consultations. Whilst it was not his intention, at this stage, to attempt to draw any conclusions or put to the Council any specific proposals, it was his sense that a majority of Members would favour the country-by-country approach, notably on the ground that it would obviate the need to send experts to Geneva on several occasions. The point had been made, however, that for such an approach to work, entailing as it would only one review meeting per country, it would be necessary to ensure that the review process was organized with a maximum of efficiency so as to enable that one meeting to be as productive as possible. As for criteria for determining the order in which countries might be taken up, a number of suggestions had been made and it was his intention to continue consultations. He sensed, however, a wide view that it would be desirable, to the maximum extent possible, to base the order on countries volunteering to have their legislation reviewed. He therefore very much encouraged the delegations concerned to make every effort to volunteer to have their legislation reviewed either in the early part of 2000 or in the second part of that year. It was his intention, with the help of the Secretariat, to consult as many delegations as possible in this regard. To sum up, therefore, his consultations, while showing a positive and constructive approach on the part of delegations to this issue, had indicated that the matter was not yet ripe for the Chair to put forward a proposal to the Council. He would therefore continue his consultations with the aim of putting to the Council a specific proposal for a decision by the Council at its next meeting, at the end of April 1999.
13. Continuing, he reminded Members that, under the notification procedures agreed by the Council (document IP/C/2), Members obliged to comply by 1 January 2000 were called upon to notify their implementing legislation in accordance with those procedures by the end of January that year. Delegations were also reminded that, under the WTO/WIPO Cooperation Agreement and decisions taken by WIPO's Governing Bodies, the International Bureau of WIPO was in a position to assist delegations with the translation of their main dedicated intellectual property laws and regulations, as required.
